Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    January 28, 2014 1:00pm-1:31pm PST

1:00 pm
mandated to be secure about this. lafco can really push the envelope in developing an rfp that will face the compliment crisis and we need to you keep this in-house. >>supervisor john avalos: thank you. >> hello commissioners. chad hose skin. we didn't hear too much about the cleanpowersf program. i was at the january 14th puc hearing and i strongly urge you to checkout the power enterprise budget information presented. a memo was available which i believe was the 14-15 two year planning cycle and indicated i think in one sentence that no work would be done on
1:01 pm
cleanpowersf by power enterprise. the focus seems to be on new high revenue customers and not on engagement. definitely a lot of information in those documents in terms of what the puc is thinking going forward and i don't think it do have dove tails what the lafco board is expecting. in-house scheduling is a comment that someone made earlier is something we heard the puc staff say they can do. and as mr. freed indicated that could actually not only not add to, but maybe even alleviate some of the funding issues that the puc is having. going to the rfp, we did as a group of advocates send a letter to the lafco staff and urged you to
1:02 pm
check that out and looking forward working on the lafco rfp going forward and assuming the shell contract is going forward seems questionable, but also maybe might not even matter that much. 20-30 mega watts for four 1/2 years while substantial may not purely maintain a plan this scope in scale. thank you very much. >>supervisor john avalos: is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. there was a question that was raised in public comment. i want to ask puc about that and that is the status of the shell contract. i can speculate probably accurately but i want to hear from you. >> barbara hale from power. we have not engaged with shell. our department let us believe that we are not going forward with the cca program as was
1:03 pm
conceived since we did not get authority though go forward. we have not been engaging with shell. >>supervisor john avalos: thank you. seems like a land with a big thud. okay, i thought the puc, the commissioners just did not approve not to exceed rates. but have they made an occasion that cleanpowersf is dead and gone? that wasn't my understanding. they just didn't approve not to exceed rates. >> i think it's accurate to say there has been no formal vote on the status of the program. the general manager and the commission have engaged in public dialogue
1:04 pm
about the program. we've been given direction at the staff level to focus our efforts on the need to get our financial house back in order. so that's where our focus has been. >>supervisor john avalos: okay. we'll have a presentation on that at our joint meeting. hopefully it won't be difficult to schedule. okay. commissioner campos. >>supervisor david campos: thank you, mr. chair, i think it's the fact that rates were not approved doesn't necessarily mean that the puc still doesn't have an obligation to continue to do work on the program because as much as that issue on rates remains open, you still have a board of supervisors decision to proceed. and i think it's
1:05 pm
interesting that the proposed budget does not include any money for clean power because i think it's an interesting thing to see an agency introduce a proposed budget that has to be approved by the body that approved a program that they are leaving out of the budget. so, i think the board of supervisors certainly will have an opportunity at the budget committee when the budget of the puc is reviewed to make sure that the budget of that agency reflects the priorities that have been set out by the legislative body of the city, the board of supervisors. and i think that there will be a number of supervises who will expect that there will be an allocation of funding to
1:06 pm
continue with community choice aggregation. >> if i can clarify, you may recall in the past two or three budgets we have not included additional funds for cleanpowersf. we have funds available in the programmatic account that is set aside to fund cleanpowersf. as i mentioned earlier, that's on the operating side. we have the $19.5 million on reserve that remains on reserve. on the budget as it's proposed, though funds stay where they are. i would characterize that more as in stand still. i think last time we brought a budget to you it did not include additional funds just like this budget won't include additional funds because there was no perceived needs for additional funds. that doesn't mean there are funds that are a part waiting for cca and
1:07 pm
further direction. hopefully through the joint meeting process we'll get some additional direction. >> i guess my question had to do more for instance with the work on the rfp. >> i understand what miss hale is saying but i think there are funds that are available, remaining available for cca. she indicated which is sort of contrary to the direction that's been given, i think internally to staff to not work on any longer. >>supervisor john avalos: if that's the issue, then it's a version of the question that i posed earlier because if the puc expects it's budget to be approved, i would imagine that it would allow it's staff to do work that the legislative body in this case anticipates or expects that will be done
1:08 pm
on this program. >> i think that's true. the item that we drop, the mou which talks about working cooperatively with one another on developing the program and particularly dealing with issues that are a contention. which i recall when there was a no vote on the rate, there were a number of issues that were expressed as the reasons why. part of the rfp is to explore answers to many of those questions. >> >>supervisor david campos: i would hope the general manager reconsider working with staff on this. >> i do too. >>supervisor john avalos: i was hoping that they would work with them through sfpuc and we have funding as well and next year is what should be in line. is there
1:09 pm
currently staff that can be helpful and that are budgeted in our budget to do this work? >> the cleanpowersf program is funded as a program. staff can charge to it as they work on it in that program index code. so those funds are sitting there, staff is not working on it. they will continue to sit there. so to the extent we are given direction to do particular community choice aggregation, clean four sf work, we have the financial resources to perform that work. that's the point i was trying to make. >>supervisor john avalos: okay, the system of the rfp could do that work? >> where we are direct to do that work yes. >> by your staff, by your commission? >> yes. and through the joint meeting process, perhaps that's the venue to discuss these items and to come to some sort of agreement as to
1:10 pm
what the going forward efforts should be. thank you. >> thank you. i appreciate that. seems like a road we've been on before. experiencing a yogi bear moment. okay. we can go to our next item. >> item no. 5. executive officers report. i have no report. oh, i'm sorry, there is an announcement for our public seats are vacant. there will be applications available online, they are available right now on the lafco website for the sitting member and the alternate. we'll be posting a notice on our website. we have it up, right? the information is available. thank you.
1:11 pm
>>supervisor john avalos: thank you, colleagues can probably do some help with the outreach to fill those vacancies and get the applications in for the seats. let's go to public comment on the executive director's report. we have no one coming forward for public comment. close public comment. next item. >> item no. 6, public comment. >> our next item is general public comment. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> next item? >> item no. 7. questions or comments. >> colleagues, any questions or proposals? seeing none. public comment. >> for sf green. especially for agenda items if you are going to have a meeting with the puc. the budget issues
1:12 pm
were raised earlier today . i know a big problem that was part of the budget. it's now $20 million more per year. it's good to find out how we got stuck with a new inter connected agreement that is going to be that much more money. i don't -- i think it due to be approved in 15. especially that brings up another item besides cleanpowersf for their 10-year projected budget, the sfpuc has agreed to remove $30 million when we have been trying to get it up to $5 million a year. we need to find out what's going on with the pg & e interconnected agreement and find out why, when we've seen evidence that minnesota solar is beating
1:13 pm
fossil fuel or price, in usa -- austria -- this is benefit for these departments and not liabilities. it doesn't make sense when we are in a budget crunch to be cutting things. we need to find out from the sfpuc what the heck is going on. that is the key number, that $20 million a year that's digging in. they have a big water project that they say is a surprise and we have to look at that because it's half a billion dollars. those energy things are something we should really dig into. >>supervisor john avalos: perhaps, sfpuc staff are not here but they can comment. we have a joint meeting in the
1:14 pm
inter connect agreement. i think there is a discussion that they are -- appealing that 20-minute price tag. >> jason freed. lafco staff. what i remember and what they are planning is now is they don't have the agreement. when they are projecting farther out. i will double check on it and i think they are projecting all the stuff may not be there so they have a higher price down the road. it's better to do it that way because the current one will be continued and to find out it's not right. i think budgeting towards the worst case scenario in that case. i will double check that for you. >> thank you. okay. we just had public comment. we can close public comment. our next item. >> item no. 8. adjournment.
1:15 pm
>>supervisor john avalos: colleagues, we are adjourned. have a lovely weekend. [ meeting is adjourned ] >> >> okay good afternoon,
1:16 pm
everyone. thank you very much for coming
1:17 pm
happy new year i'm ed reiskin i'm the director of transportation and happy to kickoff the new year. san francisco has been a dynamic city during the break i was reading the history of muni how things have changed and required the city to view. we're in a lot of change including in our transportation system a lot of change is good but it needs to be managed and it's safe and a consistent with the transit first policy. we're here to talk about that. we've got a lot of great partners partners if commercial transportation from the private be sector and companies that they service and our participates in the city. i think you'll hear from the
1:18 pm
mayor and other speakers we're chronically this issue head on and really going to address something that's are bringing benefits to san francisco and we'll continue to realize those benefits while addressing any issues that this corporate employee shuttle are bringing. without further ado happy to bring up our mayor mayor ed lee >> thank you (clapping.) well happy new year i want to thank supervisor weiner and supervisor chiu they're for better and improved transportation tom nolan is here as well as his assumes a fact not in evidence i want to thank them and tilly. i want to thank the bay area council jim has been a great
1:19 pm
contribute to us here in the bay area as we should tell our transportation issues in the city. it's better to start up the conversation with the corporations that are employees and resident are going to figure it out better and working with the commuter shuttle companies as well as the companies that are hiring our residents. it's a great opportunity to talk about this because guess what our transportation needs are great and we reflected that i think in a serious document we recently rolled the transportation documented that ed reiskin 2rikd so much to envisioning our needs. today, we're talking about a challenge something that is a
1:20 pm
recent phenomena but been in the eyes of the folks it's the commuter shuttle that have been taking our resident and others to their jobs and be it a silicon valley company or medical compass or university the shuttles are here and they've been helpful in that but for them possibly we could see 45 thousand additional vehicle millions on our roadways or some 11 thousand tons of cashing emissions on our streets. they've become an invariable source and i support the fact s that employees are figuring out ways to get their employees safely to work. up to this point the city was uncoordinated it was within our
1:21 pm
muni zones or on certain busy streets of our city. having said that we wanted to make a coordinated effort to capture for information to work with the companies who's employees are on those buses and work with the shuttle companies themselves why with them at a higher level coordination but happenstance b will get you into dallas and having conflicts in those muni zones and causing problems for bicyclists or causing buses to stop if the transport lanes without coordination. i know the more recent voices have been identifying those for the purposes of political agenda
1:22 pm
and rhetoric the buses are symbolic of other things i know our transportation experts and people in the city see this as a contribution to preventing for congestion on our streets. so today, we're here to announce an agreement with the city with the participation of the company's and the bay area council and want to thank them and the corporate leaders announce an agreement for the next 18 months we will have an agreed upon approach to the use of our muni zones with a shared use of those commuter shuttles in those zones. and we're going to focus on about 2 hundred of those zones
1:23 pm
out of the 2 thousand 5 hundred muni zones in the city. those are the ones we have studied for the past year and a half as to where the bulk of the picks up are had and we're going to coordinate this and have the cost recovery. it will be an agreement that reflects about $100,000 a year for the use of those muni zones but it will signal an identification of the people using that. they'll have to have permission to use those zones and it will have rules that reiskin will go into but respecting the minnesota lines and a making sure that certain rules their abated but for the commuter shuttle so that they're not in the way of our muni lines and
1:24 pm
also causing any further congestion or shock to the emergency e 1906. we wanted to signal an agreement on a approach that has a set of rules and has signage to let people know they're there and also a set of rules that suggest their b be there in a times and places where they'll respect the other modes of transportation that we want to have in the city. we think that with this coordinated approach we'll receive better data for our sfmta to consider for future improvements and have a ground function to talk with the commuter shuttle services and we'll have some good data to share with our companies with the practices of the employees
1:25 pm
and where the best pickup times and how they'll add value to a more efficient and safe transportation system. this is the purpose of today's announcement. as to begin this coordination but to get a cost recovery open that with the agreement but to signal we want to do that well, and right with better coordination with the muni zones for picking up their employees. i think this will lead to even better situations where if it would get literally out of hand if we didn't have the dialyses that we should be having. this is a signal to everybody i think shuttles are here to stay but they've obligate to be better coordinated and aligned
1:26 pm
with our municipal system. we've studied it i know there of the a strategic study done and we're building upon that but there's been a provision in the last 2 and a half years we have some 4 hundred shuttle companies that exit in the city. we didn't know up until now where the roulettes are and the safety practices they can be boyd by. this is a start of a coordinating body. i want to thank the sfmta as we start in coordination it may not be fast enough for everybody but we need to do this in a solid way with good conversations we expect to have like microsoft so
1:27 pm
google to xbox and all the other companies we're working with whether their employees are going south and come back and to coordinate the schedules and time framed. there are a number of companies it's not just the ones we've announced there's hospital xhupsz and orange county other campuses. we want them to make sure they're talking with us about that information we need to improve the symptom for everyone. you mean the goal should be the same. we're trying to get people to work that's the practical part trying to make sure there isn't cross purposes on issues of safety for our muni system. i think we're going to be better at it and i think with this
1:28 pm
newly found few minutes ago and good collaboration we'll get better and i know there's a lot of questions about this and we'll be glad to answer them but we'll be glad to talk about this (clapping.) thank you, mr. mayor. i didn't mention this but you're in the muni line management system. the he men and women who work here are charged with making sure the muni vehicles can get through the students of san francisco as efficiently as possible that's part of what we need to do to advance the policy this was adapted by the board of supervisors back in 1973 that transit policy is placed in the a charter and it's the charge of the sfmta and it's board of supervisors to implement that
1:29 pm
policy. the framework we're talking about is a permanent system is something that's subject to the approval by sfmta board of supervisors. we've been working on this idea with the private sector for the last couple of years after the good work done by the transportation authority in 2011. we have a proposal final list we'll bring to the board on january 21st. we've been keeping them updated we went to our policy and governs committee to provide opportunity for any public comment? and ultimately that will be the board of supervisors that will adapt this to make sure we're vance the transit first policy. i'll note that while muni is by far the largest transit provider our ridership is equal to all
1:30 pm
agencies combined. if you look at the collective ridership their equality to a big part of bringing transit to the bay area in a way that compliments what the bay agency it doing. it will be the feet of the board of supervisors i'm pleased to bring up tom nolan >> i have a good feeling about the vote on the 21st president norwegian. we want to shift the modes of transportation in san francisco to get more and more people on bikes and walking and this is an important step forward. we're pleased to be part of this and working with those fine companies and continuing


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on